CARLTON is continuing its fight to reinstate its priority national draft selection as first pick overall.
The club was told in June by the AFL it would not be eligible for the bonus, but has re-submitted a proposal seeking it be granted.
``We think the AFL should use its discretion to allow Carlton to qualify,'' president Graham Smorgon said.
``Of all the clubs that need it, we are the only ones that that rule could apply to. Having finished down the bottom, we need all the new young draft picks we can get, and we think it appropriate to ask for it.''
The AFL this year changed the priority draft pick criteria.
Previously, teams with five wins or less in a season gained a priority pick before the first round of the draft.
From this year, priority picks are to fall after the first round.
The only way a club can now gain a priority pick before the first round is if it wins four or fewer matches in two consecutive seasons.
The Blues had three wins and a draw this season, and four wins and a draw in 2005.
Even if last years results were taken into consideration the Scum wouldn't qualify as they won 4.5 last year.
As such in the small chance than their request is approved, it bloody better well also apply to Essendon.
Typical of the cheating, winging incompetant Scum board to go begging the AFL for yet more assistance despite the rules beng loud and clear and conveniently Carton and Collingwood the final benficiaries and we JUST miss out.
bueller wrote:Theres no way this should be granted,
Rules are rules - and unfortunatley if they are broken then other clubs are affected - especially Essendon.
If this gets approved - you watch us go to the courts.
The AFL actually did go outside the rules once this year, awarding Freo a win in that controversial finish against St.Kilda.
Although it was a popular and "moral" decision, they did go outside the written rules of the game and it does affect other clubs. If I may be a nasty devil's advocate, if it was called a draw, as per the rule book, St.Kilda would have finished 3rd on 58 pts, Freo 4th on 58 points. St.Kilda playing an injury revaged Adelaide first week then a home final in the second (or a week off). Hmmm wonder how Grant Thomas is feeling?
Back to the subject, sorry, this one is pretty clear though. I would say that Carlton would argue that they've averaged less than four wins for the past two years to get around it. If the AFL goes by the "letter of the law", Carlton should be unsuccessful.
bueller wrote:Theres no way this should be granted,
Rules are rules - and unfortunatley if they are broken then other clubs are affected - especially Essendon.
If this gets approved - you watch us go to the courts.
The AFL actually did go outside the rules once this year, awarding Freo a win in that controversial finish against St.Kilda.
Although it was a popular and "moral" decision, they did go outside the written rules of the game and it does affect other clubs. If I may be a nasty devil's advocate, if it was called a draw, as per the rule book, St.Kilda would have finished 3rd on 58 pts, Freo 4th on 58 points. St.Kilda playing an injury revaged Adelaide first week then a home final in the second (or a week off). Hmmm wonder how Grant Thomas is feeling?
Back to the subject, sorry, this one is pretty clear though. I would say that Carlton would argue that they've averaged less than four wins for the past two years to get around it. If the AFL goes by the "letter of the law", Carlton should be unsuccessful.
Bombercol, i remember discussing the St. Kilda v Freo outcome with you ad nauseum when it was topical. The decision the AFL made was well grounded within the laws the AFL is bound by. The decision to award Freo the win was both technically and morally correct.
I'm not going to explain how, because i explained it at least 3 times when the issue was in vogue to seemingly no avail to a number of people, so you'll just have to take my word for it.
Bombercol, i remember discussing the St. Kilda v Freo outcome with you ad nauseum when it was topical. The decision the AFL made was well grounded within the laws the AFL is bound by. The decision to award Freo the win was both technically and morally correct.
I'm not going to explain how, because i explained it at least 3 times when the issue was in vogue to seemingly no avail to a number of people, so you'll just have to take my word for it.
jimmyc1985 wrote:
Bombercol, i remember discussing the St. Kilda v Freo outcome with you ad nauseum when it was topical. The decision the AFL made was well grounded within the laws the AFL is bound by. The decision to award Freo the win was both technically and morally correct.
I'm not going to explain how, because i explained it at least 3 times when the issue was in vogue to seemingly no avail to a number of people, so you'll just have to take my word for it.
To be honest, I only brought that up to be a "devil's advocate" and notwithstanding my own views on the outcome of that decision, it's happened and I respected everyone's views and fully understand that technically and morally the right decision was made.
Hopefully the AFL in this issue will stick with their "black and white" rules and not grant Carlton's request on a technicality. As I mentioned in the last post, I'd say Carlton are pushing for this because they've averaged 4 wins per season for the past two.
If they change it for carlton they should change it for Essendon. I doubt they will though. Get used to life at the bottom carlton. You will be there for a while.
I think to be eligable for a priority at the start of the draft you have to win less than 4 two years in a row. Blues didnt do that last year. They are trying to say they should get it. We wont even if they do i dont think.
So if it is successful, which it wont be, they would have 1 and 2 and 18, and we would have 3 17 and 19 i think
